Members John Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 Alicia wants to do it as does Susan. Im sure both Erica and Kendall will be back as will Binks played by Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 He misspelled her name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marceline Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 I'm hoping this does lead to a new soap (thats always been my holy grail) but I completely understand trying to leverage these old ones as jumping off points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 Because there's still a lot of potential left in that brand, that setting, those characters young and old, and that rich history. And clearly there was a lot to rebuild with, given the right pieces, which I think they've mostly assembled. I don't need Tad or Erica back right now to have a good show - particularly one that allows vet focus to go more to people like Julia Barr, David Canary, Debbi and Darnell, Cady. Just because they were always top priority before doesn't mean they have to be now; so were Ryan and Greenlee, at ABC. You have Eden and Bianca, which is more than enough of a compass for the Kane family for the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alexisfan07 Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 I asked her about seeing them in the book in the opening, I hope she answers. I just don't want an opening similar to the one at the end of the ABC run, which had shades of the GL opening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 Don't get me wrong: I like change, too. If anything, I don't think there is enough of it where OLTL 2.0 is concerned. AMC 2.0, though, might as well be a brand-new soap with a different name, because there just wasn't enough there (again, IMO) to build on or continue with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 They have the Chandlers, the Kanes, the Cortlandts and the Hubbards, and characters of all generations plus some other popular and new folk. I'm not sure what else they should've had in terms of building blocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 With all apologies to Ms. Dolly Levi, I feel as if the parade has passed me by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 Yes. Yes. This doesn't make any sense to me. It would be one thing if this was "All My Children in name only," like the way so many people swore up and down this would be back when Prospect first entered the scene in July 2011, with a mostly new cast of mostly new characters living in a Pine Valley that bears no resemblance to any PV that we've ever known. This isn't a feature film remake or primetime reboot looking to capitalize off the AMC name (which, I hate to say it, wasn't much in the online entertainment world prior to this whole thing). It's a continuation in the truest sense of the word, with old characters returning, new characters being introduced, plotlines and backstory from the ABC run being intermingled with brand new storylines. It's soap opera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Khan Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 The Martins. For starters. And I can't say the Chandlers or the Cortlandts belong in this particular category, since I feel like they were dying on the vine toward the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 Yes, I'm with you on that one. They had plenty to build on, and they've built on it. It's exactly the way it should be. I mean, I do need La Kane, but I understand the circumstances and am willing to wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alexisfan07 Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 Jordan said: "@JordanLanePrice: @vicksvapor77 That I don't know... Yet #AMC #StayTuned" So they're either using episodic footage for the opening, they haven't shot their opening yet or she isn't sure the context her footage she may have shot for an opening will be used in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 I think most of the Martins were so played out near the end. They needed a break. For now we have Dixie, and Joe and Ruth, and I'm fine with that. Cady's wonderful. Later you can bring back some others, not to mention some of the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members All My Shadows Posted April 16, 2013 Members Share Posted April 16, 2013 Continue, because I'm intrigued. I thought the Martins had a decent presence at the end, and while they may not be a major force now, I personally think Tad and Jake needed to rest. I'd be all for a Jamie return, definitely Sam and Kelsey, but I don't think I'm willing to sacrifice any of the characters we do have -- new or old -- to make room for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.